I’ve been avidly following coverage of The Summit and there’s a lot of FANTASTIC discussion coming out of that, but one thing that caught my attention that hasn’t been really dissected yet is the false notion that arts education will save the theater.

When confronted with the stark reality that “the youth” won’t buy theater tickets, theaters oftentimes place the blame on the school system. The argument goes that decreased arts funding in schools begets students who aren’t accustomed to coming to theater, and that by not being exposed to theater at a young age we’re losing all our potential patrons. It’s a chestnut that found its way into The Summit, and it’s a position that Isherwood floated in an article about Rocco Landesman’s tenure at the NEA.

It’s also a myth.

While it may be true that arts education is on the decline, is that really a primary cause for declining theater attendance?

I personally didn’t receive much arts education as a child, and yet here I am in the theater. MFA programs are doing more robust business than ever before. (In fact they barely existed a generation ago.) Where did all those eager young applicants come from? I see hundreds of young audience members at black box theaters enjoying the heck out of off-off Broadway. But those same audience members won’t buy season tickets to larger theaters. Is it really a lack of education that’s stopping them from becoming subscribers?

Take the basic argument of “We need more theater in schools so more people will go see theater later in life” and substitute comparable forms of entertainment where young people are already dropping boatloads of money. The very logic of the construction collapses.

Consider the following assertions:

No one likes cooking anymore because we stopped teaching Home Ec in the schools.

We need more video game training in classrooms to ensure the next generation of Xbox users.

If we don’t teach kids how to listen to standup comedy, Louis CK will go bankrupt.

Kids who never played live music in school just plain won't pay for a Jay-Z concert.

Now consider the converse, swapping out theater for things that we do teach in schools:

Good thing we taught kids biology, because zoo attendance is up 50%.

Colonial Williamsburg is popping thanks to US History classes.

Now that we have English in schools, bookstores are saved!

My classroom had a PC, therefore this ipad is nonsense.

The truth is that no one needs to be trained to enjoy theater. Theater is primal. When a show is electric – when a play surprises and delights and actually says something new and truthful about the world that we live in – there’s a collective energy in the room that needs no explanation. It’s just that a lot of theater is terribly boring, and we're not doing all we can to respect audiences enough to present them with challenging work.

A lot of theater buildings feel inaccessible, too. A clubhouse for people already in the know, what with their arcane ticketing rules and inflexible schedules and clueless volunteer ushers and lack of lobby seating and strict bans on beverages in the house. I’ve heard theater people complain, “Young people will drop $100 on a restaurant, but won't buy a theater ticket!” Well would you go to a restaurant where you have to make a prepaid nonrefundable deposit, your reservation time can’t be changed, the host is just a volunteer who wants to eat there for free, if you buy a drink at the bar you can't bring it to your table, you have to be totally silent at dinner, there's only 5 items on the menu and the menu never changes, and you’re kicked out of the restaurant exactly 10 minutes after your dinner? If you wouldn't go to that restaurant, is it because you lack education?

Audiences don’t have a problem with arts education. Theaters have a problem with hospitality. Most efforts at bringing in young audiences are condescending at best. Designated Twitter Seats... because kids can’t stop tweeting. Free Beer with Your Ticket... because all kids want to do is get wasted. No efforts made at changing up the actual plays.

In truth theaters have a serious curatorial problem when it comes to choosing plays that a young, diverse audience can get behind. The fantastic documentary Miss Representation introduces the concept of symbolic annihilation in the media, and it applies exceedingly well to the theater. Why would young people (or people of color, or women) bother coming to the theater when they’re so rarely depicted onstage, and when they're so rarely in command of the artistic process? Is our dwindling audience truly a reflection of the educational landscape, or is it a reflection of a chronic homogeneity onstage exacerbated by an attendant homogeneity in our staffing?

Even if there were some correlation between arts education and audience attendance, it will take a generation to fix the educational system and even more time to measure whether increased arts education had any downstream effect. Whereas we are facing a crisis of audience right here and now. We are in a war of attrition – a war that we know we are losing. In the midst of losing a war, you don’t get the luxury of saying, “I wish we had more military education.” The only recourse is a quick strategy change.

Instead of blaming something so distal as arts education, let’s look at the proximal barriers that are keeping young people out of the theater, and consider fixes we can implement now:

To attract a young, diverse audience, present work that’s reflective of a young, diverse audience.

Widen the perspectives being presented onstage.

Place more faith in the artists.

More funding for artists, less funding for buildings.

Make the theater a more friendly and welcoming place.

Make seeing theater easier on working parents.

Lower the barrier of entry by lowering ticket prices.

Right now the institutional theater has the same demographic problems as the Republican Party: largely aging, largely affluent, largely White. If you truly want a young and diverse audience, you’re going to have fundamentally change up your programming in a way that may very well alienate your existing base. Which may be okay. Because that base isn't large enough to form a sustainable coalition.

It actually verges on arrogance, this tendency to blame arts education for our own shortcomings. It’s an elitist argument that absolves us of agency. “We can’t do anything about it! We’ve done all we can! They’re just too uneducated to appreciate theater!”

Am I arguing against education? Of course not. I’m just saying we owe it to ourselves to be more diligent about tracing causality. It’s easy to point the finger at arts education; that’s a factor beyond our control. But taking ownership over the factors we can control? That’s a much harder matter.

Mike - Terrific thoughts. I applaud of the core of your essay and agree deeply - what audiences need is great plays, well done, in an environment that excites people and welcomes them.

However, while you're blowing up all those educational syllogisms, I would be wary of making another one: you conclude that because 1. There are more plays produced by white men than by young / female / non-white writers and 2. Theaters want to attract audiences from those three demographics that 3. Theaters should produce plays written by those demographics.

While I am a huge advocate for breaking down barriers any great artists and production, we all must be careful not to suggest that financial or ticket-sale success will automatically occur if theaters produce more plays by unrepresented artists. Because, if this doesn't occur, it can simply become another excuse for frightened companies NOT to produce young/non-white/female writers and directors. What we don't want is management saying, "We tried that young Latina's play - we just couldn't sell tickets to it. So we'll do a Miller in that slot next year - that's sure to sell tickets."

But, Mike is right. Produce work by artists of color and women and represent those voices and faces onstage (and front of house, backstage and on your staff), and audiences will indeed come. But there has to be an institution-wide commitment to a sustained effort in reaching these audiences with work that is relevant to their lives throughout the season and year after year.

This is well and cleverly argued, but I disagree. Arts education DOES create theater audiences. Is it all that's needed? I don't know anybody who says that.
I asked this question on my Twitter feed (<a href="http://twitter.com/newyorktheater">@newyorktheater</a>): "Anybody here have personal experience of arts education making a difference in your theatergoing or theater-making? #artsed" The answers are pouring in.

The other thing that always gets me is, "Young people will spend $100+ on concert tickets, so why not this?" Because they know what they're getting--a Famous-At-Some-Level Singer playing songs they've been able to hear on the radio, iTunes, YouTube, etc. Maybe they're seeing Barenaked Ladies because they've downloaded one of their "official bootleg" concerts and want to see that fun in real life. There's little to no speculation there, and often a lot more personal investment in the event.

And, of course, that has nothing to do with music education and everything to do with ease of access, ease of hearing/watching/trying the work.

Now, if theatre would combine free beer and tweet seats...

Reply

Richard

2/21/2014 09:05:32

This is also why we need to work to professionalize even midsized nonprofit theatre. How can we make theatre more accessible to people who work when the people working in theatre itself (actors, set designers, etcetera) have day jobs that make their own schedules rigid and inflexible?

Reply

mhb

2/22/2014 13:31:51

I believe your point is closer to the truth than some of the others; because you understand the difference, I think, between putting on a show & professional theater -- & you get the latter only by having a body of theater professionals who are able to work at their craft. There is a big difference between putting on a well-funded production at a well-funded uni & putting on a show where what you do must be a combination of business & art.

You can be a "professional" small theater, even when your staff work during the day. It's about doing what you have to do to make it work -- not about the fact that if you work a full time job you are not treating your craft professionally. Every person that works in our ensemble holds down a full time or equivalent job. That has zero to do with what they bring to the table after 5 pm on the stage. It's about commitment and intrinsic value to the artists and to the audiences.

The notion that people working other jobs have schedules that are rigid and inflexible is outdated thinking. You have to make theater accessible from every angle: flexible ticket exchanges, reservations that don't have a bloated ticketing fee attached, material that is engaging. In short -- you have to treat it as if you were having people into your home to enjoy themselves. Treat your patrons as family. And yes, you can achieve this and be professional -- the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Program works that engage the audience and get them tot think and feel, and that make the people around them want to talk about what they saw. In other words, make it matter -- don't take your patrons for granted. They have many other choices.

Reply

Skylar Fox

2/21/2014 09:10:54

Absolutely, Mike! Right on! You articulated a lot of the ideas that I think are key in understanding how to actually create a new generation of theatre-goers.

What I would add, and you began to touch on this, is the importance of enabling young artists. Young artists may be largely untested, but their minds are not yet vacuu-formed by ten years of internships and assistantships at large companies, where the programming and business model are outdated. With the proper support, and trust, they will create the theatre (and theaters) for a new generation, as they will be making theatre that they themselves would want to see. It's a simple solution: get those young people out of administrative offices and into rehearsal rooms.

Too bad that's where the $$ is. And too bad too many theaters chase the $$.

Reply

Chisa

2/21/2014 11:28:52

Yes. To all of this. And I'll add that presenting one brilliant piece by an emerging artist without properly marketing the thing does not count. Look at Passing Strange. Good thing Spike Lee was paying attention, or I would've missed that completely. Young audiences can't go to sh!t they don't know about, and ignoring that fact by marketing to the same stodgy old crowd and then shrugging and going, "Well, we triiiiiiiiied," is not acceptable. That's just setting new theater up for the appearance of failure.

Reply

Daniel Pinkerton

2/21/2014 12:06:49

This is a well-argued and beautifully written essay. I congratulate you. I would like to raise an additional point: The content should be welcoming, too. I don't mean that all theatres should present pabulum; indeed, it's important for theatre to make people question their values, and it should provide a fresh view of the world. But obscure, elitist bullshit is just as bad as the umpteenth production of Arsenic and Old Lace. Playwrights can and should experiment with structure (I certainly have) if it illuminates character, story, or the point of the play, but give an audience a memorable character or story as a vehicle for seeing their world anew. Audiences will follow you to some amazing places if you acknowledge their intelligence and welcome them on board.

Reply

Kristen

2/21/2014 14:12:14

I agree with many parts of your argument, but you must be careful not to undervalue the role of arts education in theatre. I think I speak for many of my ed director colleagues when I say that our primary goal is not to "train" students to enjoy theatre. Our job is to expose them to the art form and to teach them about a craft that allows for expression and critical thinking, among other things.

You mention theatre being primal--the energy in the room when something is good. But first you have to get them into that black box, don't you? And most people, young or old, are simply not going to make that leap without the introduction first. Whether its because of cultural reasons or socioeconomic reasons, most young people will not have the opportunity to see theatre outside of an educational setting, i.e. field trip to a performing arts organization. Combining arts education with quality, diverse, and challenging programming seems like a much better tactic for growing future audiences as the older subscriber base fades away (is "fades away" a tactful enough euphemism?).

Reply

Blake

2/21/2014 15:58:57

Interesting post...and it's clearly sparking lots of discussion.

Just remember that arts education does a lot more than create new audiences.

What about creating new artists? And what about those new artists who then bring in new audiences?

On a separate note, I agree that much theatre is boring and many theatres are not particularly inviting.

At the same time, let's be honest....we've all been involved in boring theatre at some point. You have and so have I.

"Boring" however, is subjective. What's boring to you or me may not be boring to the person who can pay $100 per ticket...

Wow - great thought provoking discussion. I am going to put myself out there and state what may seem obvious - there are no simple or singular solutions. Nor is there one problem.

I'm also going to suggest that while it does seem that there are a countless number of opportunities for both training in and exposure to theatre, these may not be the answer to building audiences now and in the future.

In fact, research has shown that exposure to the arts has no significant impact unless it actively engages the sense of personal relevance to the participant. That is a big idea! There are education models that work to open a window to theatre (and all the arts) in this fashion.

In fact, I have been teaching in just such a model for many many years and have recently launched a new company, StageSmart Teaching Artists designed to provide a rich personal encounter with touring Broadway shows by immersing participants into the world of that show. This is experiential learning through inquiry, art-making, and reflection in the context of the show the participant will attend.

This is not skill based or result oriented learning. Rather it calls upon the innate theatrical competence and creativity of the participants. The experience of seeing the show then becomes an active, engaging, personal and relevant experience for the participants.

So if we go back to the premise that the theatre being presented is "boring" and/or "inaccessible" one thing that must be considered is that we need to "open a window" to the artistic choice-making of the creators so that we may experience a show more deeply.

Can we expect anyone to enjoy or connect to every single piece of theatre they see - of course not...that would demonstrate a lack of discernment. But I firmly believe that having a more personally relevant experience of the theatre authentically changes one's reasons for attending and brings people back for more!

I invite you all to check out www.StageSmart.org and/or "like" https://www.facebook.com/StageSmart.

You make GREAT points, thank you for putting into words feelings I've had for some time . I am a theatre artist and I've been in theaters where I don't even feel welcome -and I'm part of the "club". I was invited to observe a theatre in the schools at a local high school, the buzz in the halls was "we're gonna act today" -in fact, the workshop was billed as "interactive". Instead, the actors came in and acted AT the kids and the interaction was very prescribed. I could feel all those kids leaving disillusioned. THEATRE should be for all, in my opinion.

Reply

Andy

2/22/2014 13:09:17

great observations, and spot on... but just to play devils advocate, If the work that is being done has been promoting the perspective of aging white males, why aren't more aging white males coming to the theatre, I dont have numbers but the common perspective is that the majority of theatre and arts enthusiasts are women who are dragging their husbands along for the ride.

Reply

Seth Rozin

2/22/2014 17:51:01

Thanks for writing this, Mike! I think you are absolutely right about the continuous, overly indulged correlation between arts education and theatre attendance.

But I also think there are other dimensions to this issue than you are addressing. First, as someone who entered the field over a generation ago and was scared into believing that there might not be any theatre in 20 years because audiences were so old, I can say with great confidence that theatre audiences did not all die out. In fact, the clarion call, from just about everyone, to cultivate young audiences or risk the death of our artform, is misplaced in itself. The primary reason audiences at most theatres are older is because older people -- especially those in retirement -- have far more disposable time and money than they have ever had, so they spend it on things they like to do, like theatre. Younger people, from post-college to pre-retirement, are consumed with starting families and raising children, and launching and maintaining careers. The retirement crowd has no such obligations.

Second, while I agree that there is a frustrating lack of imagination among many of our more corporate-seeming theatres in this country, we have to remember that the hundreds of thousands of patrons who subscribe to those institutions are CHOOSING to spend their money and time to see the work presented by those theatres. In most cases, they are choosing those theatres over others in the same market. Those hundreds of thousands of patrons, who represent the lion's share of patrons nationwide, are not clamoring for more adventurous, imaginative or diverse work. It is easy to say that theatres should just do more diverse and adventurous plays, but they have virtually no incentive to do so. In addition to their large audience bases that reinforce their programmatic choices, theatre boards and institutional funders (perhaps more influential than any other constituency) REWARD theatres for generating large audiences and remaining good investments as institutions. Personally, I believe the primary thing that needs to change, in order for this trend to be undone, is for institutional funders to stop feeding the monster.

Reply

Trisha Mead

2/25/2014 13:19:25

I think your analysis of the problem is spot on but I am disappointed in the lack of innovation in your proposals for solutions. A cozier lobby and special young people ticket prices are 20 year old ideas that have had relatively little impact. The programming is definitely a valid point, but the real issue is tackling those barriers you discuss in your framing of the problem: What does it look like to have variable start times? Or shows that can be watched with varying degrees of formality and intimacy? How do you add try it before you buy it opportunities? How do you remove barriers for families with kids? How do you make the overall evening more personal, with more opportunity for social interaction (a key feature of a concert or dinner out that you lose almost entirely in the hush of a theatre?) and how do you support casual drop in experiences while still keeping the lights on and bills paid? No subscribers means no start up capital for a season. How do you address that? You are absolutely right that its "the structure, stupid" but how do you change up the structure to fit our interconnected, highly social, short attention span new world order?

Reply

Mike Callaway

2/27/2014 09:15:24

As someone who works full time in theatre, I applaud your search for ways to increase exposure to new audiences and I agree that programming is the primary concern. I do, however, take exception to your sweeping generalizations about arts education and front-of-house policies and practices. Arts education is part of the overall need and not a complete solution by itself. It is, however, critical to starting the process where a young person learns creativity and how to channel that to an expressive outlet of some/any kind, from street theatre to Broadway.

Your thesis that rigid curtain times turn people off is also too narrow a view. Too many options lead to confusion, late arrivals and missed shows just as often as it brings in new audiences. I'm not saying flexibility is a bad thing, but you have to know your audience.

As is mentioned above, older patrons have the disposable income and the time and less going on in their lives. They're the ones who have the money to donate beyond buying a ticket. We HAVE to cater to that audience to a certain extent. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ALSO cater to younger and minority audiences, but you have to find the balance and it's damn difficult. Trying new things is absolutely necessary and you have to be bold, but you also have to keep the lights on. We do need to have flexibility in ticket pricing, but how far do you go? We need the revenue stream in order to keep presenting well produced theatre. Not everything is served by a blank stage and a chair.

Finally, give the volunteers a break. They're not all craven and rude. Lots of them genuinely want to support theatre as much as they want a free seat and most theatres, especially those with limited revenue streams like the black boxes you're championing, couldn't manage without them.

An attention-grabbing dialogue is value comment. I believe which you need to write far more on this matter, it won’t be a taboo topic nevertheless generally individuals are not sufficient to speak on such topics. Towards the next. Cheers